Martial Arts Fishing Stories and the One True Wing Chun
Rene Ritchie, December 30th, 2007
When the first Wing Chun Kuen teachers came West, many passed down stories about how they or their sifu or their system were the One True Traditional Authentic Orthodox Real Deal, and otherwise placed other teachers and branches into lesser roles.
In a cultural context, this is not a big deal. Fishing stories are a good Western example of this type of exaggeration, at least in part. Some sifu would always credit famous legends (from books or even fairy tales like gods or immortals) as founders of their art because it was considered arrogant to claim credit for creating something. Likewise, if you ever wanted to teach for business, you either had to earn your reputation in public duels (which became very difficult later under the PRC), or by linking your art to someone or something famous (i.e. Ng Mui or the Shaolin Temple), or by claiming to be the one true source of something (which exists not just in WCK but virtually every MA).
In the West, we often don’t understand this cultural and so we believe the big stories to be true (sometimes to the point of cultism), and if/when we discover their not, we think the people who told them were liars and have an equal and opposite negative reaction.
From the 50s to the 90s, it was pretty much open season for this kind of behavior, as China was relatively closed and there was almost no English language (and precious little information even in Hong Kong) about the real breadth and depth of Wing Chun. So, while this did cause bad blood with those sifu and systems still in China (and politics that linger to this day), it created great opportunity for many in the West, and legions of followers who took to these fables as fact.
Then the Internet happened, and suddenly anyone who bothered to take the time and make the effort could find out about many of the different teachers and branches of Wing Chun, and even see examples of what they looked like and how they approached things.
The blinders came off. (Though not for everyone and not all at once — it takes a while for each and every individual to discover the true diversity and richness of the art for themselves, and the minute they do, it’s likely someone else will pop up, new to the online world yet dogged by the same old fairy tales, and initiate the process over (and over and over) again).
Sure, it can still be confusing, especially with all the sifu/sifu said stories tangled through the interwebs, but the patient among us know that, luckily, the systems themselves tell pretty much all. The past greats all made the art their own, and each branch still carries its signatures if you know where to look. So, if some new story comes out about yet another One True Traditional Authentic Real Deal system, yet it has one of Yip Man’s modifications, or Sum Nung’s integrations, or even William Cheung’s knife choreography or Leung Ting’s training drills, or the Fung families arrangements… well, the smart people who do their research — like any buyer, beware — will figure it out.
Nice article Rene! A good oversight of how we have taken on yet more variations of an already complex art form with so much ease, if you ask me, in comparison to what I personally witnessed back in 1997.
I have to say though, IMO it was only really after Ip Man passed away in the seventies , and after the Bruce Lee boom, that varied stories and families started to be heard of in the West. My Sigung was in the UK in the late fifties but I believe he only ever taught Chinese until his own students introduced him to some westerners. He too had his personal ways, but was loyal to Ip Man and his preferred promotions, maybe even accepting his ‘lesser role’ due to his humility. More recently we are being viewed as a ‘mix’ of mainland and Hong Kong versions, which I think is good.
In 1997 I demonstrated a version of Lee Shings Pole Form for the first time publically. This was distinctively different from my Uncles forms (Sifu Lee & Sifu Goh)and so were the other demonstrations, as they too included more ‘mainland’ influence than previous generations. At the time I was scorned and the team was distraught that others said our family ‘was not Wing Chun’!
I see many groups today using the Wing Chun name, yet look more distant from Ip Mans original than we ever did. More understanding is definately there now, more research and families to tie into the big picture. Yet still, my Sigung Lee Shing’s methods are not known or recognised as they should be IMHO.
I think what I’m trying to say is ‘never close your mind to new stories!’ As much as you think you may already know, I believe that the ‘blinders are still on’, and they always will be until certain governments’ intervention. Insurance governing bodies have just never cut it!
Think about it, China herself has allowed this to happen before and it’s all started again without her support.
@TiFei: Hey, there’s a karate school around here that calls itself Shaolin Temple yet wears Gi and does Pinan Kata. Names have become wrappers.
I think you’re right about Bruce Lee. Because of his fame, Wing Chun went from a simple martial art which could be taught to eek out a living to a ticket for fame and fortune (and teaching MA at the time in HK was looked down upon as extremely low class; something for gangsters and troublemakers, and not the wealthy merchant class of Foshan). It certainly gave people (even in completely unrelated arts!) motivation to connect themselves with Bruce Lee and claim some special “secret sauce” to attract students.
If people got it in their head to say they created this art version and stand by it - then perhaps people would consider that and study the art if it had merit.
I’ve seen many versions of made up WCK. Some good, some bad.
The method and the fundamental tools/skills of WCK are what matters — the rest (lineage, form choreography, stories, etc.) is at best fluff and at worst bullshit. The sad part is that most people are interested in the fluff and the bullshit (whose got the “true” or “genuine” fluff and bullshit) rather than the substance.
I agree with all of you here. Respect to anyone who puts their name before Wing Chuns, but I have to honestly say that ‘naming’ an already ‘named’ style after yourself, to me, is ludicrous! No offence intended, but Wing Chun is Wing Chun. No fluff. No bullshit.
@ Rene: That Karate school sounds off mate. Back in the day in the UK they would have been closed down for sure!! Nowadays even I have watched Koreans calling their brand of TKD ‘Kung Fu’!! And as for those rich Foshan merchants, isn’t that who Leung Jans loose hand techniques were for?? Just don’t give them the forms lol!!!
Then Ip Man gave all forms to the western world! Aren’t we lucky?
I don’t know about the UK, but on this side of the pond, “Shaolin” is pandemic. There used to be a huge franchise of Shaolin Kem/npo schools (the owner would pose in Black Belt in front of his Ferrari!) — though some use the Japanese pronunciation of Shorinji as well).
Even in Chinese history, circa 1900, there was a movement among the Nationalists to resurrect all the Tang dynasty Shaolin stories and use them as a way to promote patriotism among the external Tongs so that the Tong’s would think their origins lay in Shaolin and help the Nationalists take power. (Since many of the Nationalists later had to leave China, they took these stories with them, and those who later taught MA passed them along as well).